WATCH: Pat Robertson Likens Transgender People to Geldings (http://www.advocate.com/politics/transgender/2013/10/09/watch-pat-robertson-likens-transgender-people-geldings)
DANIEL REYNOLDS, OCTOBER 09 2013 7:10 PM ET
Pat Robertson expressed both outrage and ignorance on transgender rights issues in his response to a new law that protects transgender students in California.
The antigay televangelist compared a transgender person to his "big and beautiful" stallion that had been castrated...
Reacting to the passage of AB 1266, which ensures California transgender students access to the public school activities and facilities, like restrooms and locker rooms, that correspond to their gender identity, Robertson also railed against the influence of LGBT people in the spheres of politics and law.
From the video:
Pat Robertson: "I am not opposed to somebody who feels that they are, [for instance] a boy trapped in a girl's body, and they want a sex change operation. That happens and I see nothing wrong with it."
To clarify, the argument Robertson is making has to do with the propriety of a pre-op or non-op transgendered person using sex-segregated facilities opposite of their current sexual presentation. This issue still divides the transgender community, as is shown in the opinions stated last year about the controversy surrounding an incident at Evergreen State College, in which a pre-op 45-year old transwoman was permitted the use the shower facilities in sight of girls as young as 6-years old.
Social conservatives have not lifted their opposition to recognizing the gender reassignment as they opposed it when it was first accepped in Callifornia about 35 years ago.
Obviously that woman doesn't know what HRT is.
I'm inclined to be okay with what they're saying in this. They're NOT in any way bashing transsexual people, they tend to forget transsexuals are a part of transgenders, what they are doing is saying if you have the parts for 1 sex, you should use their bathroom. This makes perfect sense to me, not because you would be any less of a man/woman. It's for safety of other people AND yourself.
Quote from: formerMTF on October 10, 2013, 10:13:06 AM
Social conservatives have not lifted their opposition to recognizing the gender reassignment as they opposed it when it was first accepped in Callifornia about 35 years ago.
That's just broad brush non-sense.
Quote from: Beth Andrea on October 10, 2013, 12:36:19 PM
Rape is illegal whether or not one is trans...and there are no locks on any bathroom entrances that I've seen. It is just as easy for a cis-male to physically walk into the lady's room as a trans*woman.
Which is also not the only problem.
So trans women aren't women. They're just less aggressive males. *eye roll*
I should probably also mention I don't agree with the second half- it's completely inappropriate.
I don't think bathrooms should even be segregated. They should just make stalls more private.
Quote from: dalebert on October 10, 2013, 01:50:52 PM
I don't think bathrooms should even be segregated. They should just make stalls more private.
I mean, in regards to fairness I think it really depends. When referencing an environment with showers or open nudity or environments where children are present, I can see how this can be a bit of a fuss. It can be very confusing. If it's just a traditional bathroom, I agree- stalls need a bit more privacy to avoid any kind of hate crime or as has been stated sexual assault from happening as much as possible.
I came back to delete both my posts, but only found one. If anyone has quoted a post of mine, please edit it.
Thank you, and I'm sorry for any inappropriate comments.
Quote from: Beth Andrea on October 10, 2013, 02:09:35 PM
I came back to delete both my posts, but only found one. If anyone has quoted a post of mine, please edit it.
Thank you, and I'm sorry for any inappropriate comments.
Why is that? I mean, I think we're kinda saying the same thing. Your opinions are just as valid as mine.
I'm sorry but I don't see this as reasonable at all. Let's say a pre-op women that completely passes and lives full time needs to use the bathroom. Why should she use the men's room? Isn't that putting her at risk in some way? Does he even care about the safety of others or is it all about his arbitrary definition on what makes one an official man or woman? Besides, he can't take back the fact that he concurred with "Dr" Falwell's assessment that the lgbt community helped bring about 9/11. He is not reasonable in any degree. Moral majority ::)
Quote from: learningtolive on October 10, 2013, 02:31:57 PM
I'm sorry but I don't see this as reasonable at all. Let's say a pre-op women that completely passes and lives full time needs to use the bathroom. Why should she use the men's room? Isn't that putting her at risk in some way? Does he even care about the safety of others or is it all about his arbitrary definition on what makes one an official man or woman? Besides, he can't take back the fact that he concurred with "Dr" Falwell's assessment that the lgbt community helped bring about 9/11. He is not reasonable in any degree. Moral majority ::)
Just based off the fact that he was excluding "boys trapped in girls bodies" from the transgendered label should say something about what you just argued. Basically, the way I read that is fully transitioned transsexuals it makes sense, however drag queens, cross dressers and the rest of the transgender umbrella shouldn't be allowed to go in to the different bathrooms which is to a degree unacceptable depending on the seriousness of the individual. Some cross dressers are still transsexual, some merely don't have the means to get what they need. It's all dependent and his ignorance to the terminology evidently makes his views a little less clear to comprehend.
Quote from: Nidalexi on October 10, 2013, 11:31:25 AM
They're NOT in any way bashing transsexual people, they tend to forget transsexuals are a part of transgenders, what they are doing is saying if you have the parts for 1 sex, you should use their bathroom. This makes perfect sense to me, not because you would be any less of a man/woman. It's for safety of other people AND yourself.
The problem with that is that this guy would be using the women's. Something tells me that wouldn't go over too well. :laugh:
(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elisarolle.com%2Fromance%2Fimages%2FBuckAngel.jpg&hash=bfe64b30823ded3666ab9d247489219a70c29579)
Quote from: Nidalexi on October 10, 2013, 02:36:18 PM
Just based off the fact that he was excluding "boys trapped in girls bodies" from the transgendered label should say something about what you just argued. Basically, the way I read that is fully transitioned transsexuals it makes sense, however drag queens, cross dressers and the rest of the transgender umbrella shouldn't be allowed to go in to the different bathrooms which is to a degree unacceptable depending on the seriousness of the individual. Some cross dressers are still transsexual, some merely don't have the means to get what they need. It's all dependent and his ignorance to the terminology evidently makes his views a little less clear to comprehend.
Sure, I understand your view. I'm not really saying anything to the contrary. The problem is how do you determine who is transsexual and who is transgender purely on the basis of appearance?
Also, he did make the distinction between pre-ops and post-ops. It's pretty clear from the beginning of the video. That's my main issue because he probably doesn't understand how one can transition fully but be forced to wait for the surgery. A full time women shouldn't have to go to the men's room, even if she is pre-op.
Quote from: learningtolive on October 10, 2013, 02:48:14 PM
Sure, I understand your view. I'm not really saying anything to the contrary. The problem is how do you determine who is transsexual and who is transgender purely on the basis of appearance?
Also, he did make the distinction between pre-ops and post-ops. It's pretty clear from the beginning of the video. That's my main issue because he probably doesn't understand how one can transition fully but be forced to wait for the surgery. A full time women shouldn't have to go to the men's room, even if she is pre-op.
Transsexuals ARE transgender. That's one thing many people fail to realize.
You're right, and nor should a great many transgender people. But as I said I think it's fair in places with open nudity to say pre-op transsexuals would cause a fuss, it's fair.
I know when I start presenting full time. Yeah I'll want to use female facilities, but until I get my surgery I'll definitely keep my space from open nudity zones. Showers and what-not.
Quote from: Nidalexi on October 10, 2013, 02:58:18 PM
Transsexuals ARE transgender. That's one thing many people fail to realize.
You're right, and nor should a great many transgender people. But as I said I think it's fair in places with open nudity to say pre-op transsexuals would cause a fuss, it's fair.
I know when I start presenting full time. Yeah I'll want to use female facilities, but until I get my surgery I'll definitely keep my space from open nudity zones. Showers and what-not.
Well, transsexuals are part of the transgender community. However, not all transgender people are transsexual.
I avoid public bathrooms as much as possible, but sometimes you can't. If you are deep in the city and away from your place, there is little you can do. If you are working a 12 hour shift with no break (I've done that in the past), you'll likely have to use the public facilities. It would be terrible for me to have to go into the men's room once I am full time. Surgery costs a lot of money and not all of us have access to gender free bathrooms. Besides, I've never considered bathrooms as nudity free zones. No one walks around naked, unless they have some problems.
Nonetheless, I respect you opinion and we will have to agree to disagree. :)
Quote from: learningtolive on October 10, 2013, 03:10:48 PM
Well, transsexuals are part of the transgender community. However, not all transgender people are transsexual.
I avoid public bathrooms as much as possible, but sometimes you can't. If you are deep in the city and away from your place, there is little you can do. If you are working a 12 hour shift with no break (I've done that in the past), you'll likely have to use the public facilities. It would be terrible for me to have to go into the men's room once I am full time. Surgery costs a lot of money and not all of us have access to gender free bathrooms. Besides, I've never considered bathrooms as nudity free zones. No one walks around naked, unless they have some problems.
Nonetheless, I respect you opinion and we will have to agree to disagree. :)
That's the same thing I've said time and time again.
And that's because bathrooms don't generally have open nudity, you have yet to actually even disagree with me. :P
Why is it that people are so pissed bout some being treated as a damn human being? Just because these "norma" people would love to use that law to fulfill their own pervese desires. The rest of us just want to pee. They talk about how unfair it is to the others but have you had to go a full day without being able to go.to.the bathroom? Thats crewl and inhuman.
And ive heard some say, well you can still use the other bathroom. Do they really not grasp the concept on how judge we would be and dangerous? They wont stop till we bury who.we are and wont accept anything less. Because "god didnt make mstakes. "
Quote from: learningtolive on October 10, 2013, 02:31:57 PM
I'm sorry but I don't see this as reasonable at all. Let's say a pre-op women that completely passes and lives full time needs to use the bathroom. Why should she use the men's room? Isn't that putting her at risk in some way? Does he even care about the safety of others or is it all about his arbitrary definition on what makes one an official man or woman? Besides, he can't take back the fact that he concurred with "Dr" Falwell's assessment that the lgbt community helped bring about 9/11. He is not reasonable in any degree. Moral majority ::)
Pat Robertson, on his website, distanced himself from the comments that he had agreed with at the time they were made. He said that during the interview, Falwell suddenly made a "...political statement of blame directed at certain segments of the population that was severe and harsh in tone, and, frankly, not fully understood by the three hosts of The 700 Club who were watching Rev. Falwell on a monitor." Robertson said he considered the comments "totally inappropriate" and that critics had taken the words out of context. -
TruthOrFiction.com (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm#.UlcQpBBH2Sp)
Even spaces with nudity shouldn't be segregated. If we didn't teach people segregation was a good thing from an early age, kids would grow up learning about respect for other people's space bubbles regardless of what they're wearing. What's the justification? Gay people realized this was a society-fabricated problem long ago. We've had to learn how to be in the same spaces with people we're attracted to while respecting space bubbles, not staring or doing things that would make others uncomfortable and so forth. Perhaps have a few extra private spaces available for anyone who's feeling more modest than most. That's fine. But it shouldn't be gender-based, sexual orientation-based, race-based, whatever-based.
Quote from: Gadgett on October 10, 2013, 03:26:46 PM
SNIP
And ive heard some say, well you can still use the other bathroom. Do they really not grasp the concept on how judge we would be and dangerous? They wont stop till we bury who.we are and wont accept anything less. Because "god didnt make mstakes. "
I agree that the hackneyed "God doesn't make mistakes" line is hateful, and lacks both compassion and understanding.
But I don't hear that from Robertson in these video clips.
I see this situation and look at it as an opportunity to educate. Clearly, neither Robertson nor the female host had any idea what transgender meant.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 10, 2013, 03:41:42 PM
Pat Robertson, on his website, distanced himself from the comments that he had agreed with at the time they were made. He said that during the interview, Falwell suddenly made a "...political statement of blame directed at certain segments of the population that was severe and harsh in tone, and, frankly, not fully understood by the three hosts of The 700 Club who were watching Rev. Falwell on a monitor." Robertson said he considered the comments "totally inappropriate" and that critics had taken the words out of context. - TruthOrFiction.com (http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm#.UlcQpBBH2Sp)
Yes, he agreed with it at the time. That's my point. I don't care if he distanced himself later on. His views were clear and he didn't misunderstand. He simply backpeddled. Robertson has a track record of constantly doing these things. If it were a one time fluke, I would let it go, but he has proven his true colors time and time again. There is no protecting him.
Quote from: learningtolive on October 10, 2013, 04:11:21 PM
Yes, he agreed with it at the time. That's my point. I don't care if he distanced himself later on. His views were clear and he didn't misunderstand. He simply backpeddled. Robertson has a track record of constantly doing these things. If it were a one time fluke, I would let it go, but he has proven his true colors time and time again. There is no protecting him.
With age sometimes comes greater understanding. I see Robertson as someone who has developed a better understanding. I certainly don't think he is the sharpest tool in the shed when it comes to transgender issues. What I do see in him is the evolution of his ideas. He is a traditionalist, evangelical Christian preacher ... who now accepts that transsexuals are not some abomination. I call that progress.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on October 10, 2013, 04:19:52 PM
I call that progress.
Yeah, I have to agree with you. Sometimes people, even cruel people,
can change. Weather his reason for doing so is because it's becoming less and less acceptable for people to degrade other humans and he's trying to avoid backlash in the future that he knows is coming, or he's simply changed his mind due to age and possibly a little education or thought, it's still a change in tone. At the end of the day, that's not a bad thing. I don't claim to agree with most of what Pat Robertson says, but if
he can change his opinion to take a more accepting view, that's some serious progress and it's something I applaud him for, especially if he stays with this view.
Is it back peddling? Maybe. But ... is that necessarily a bad thing? He's changed his views and may be trying to save face. My thought on him possibly trying to play down past comments is, let him do so. It takes a good person to know when they've messed up, even if they don't admit that publicly. I don't care about blame, and I don't hold grudges. Every mind that accept us as human beings that didn't yesterday is good for our nations future as a whole. It really does give me some hope for the future.
On top of that, Pat Robertson is, like him or not, also in a unique position to talk to a group of people who would be afraid to be within 20 feet of trans people. Those people may never trust a word we say. But if he says we're human, and not something that should be hated to those people we can't reach, maybe they'll listen to him.
This could give us common ground to begin building bridges to the most conservative elements of our nation and possibly a way to start building a dialog with them that doesn't revolve around total fear and misunderstanding.
Am I being optimistic? You bet, but change has to start somewhere.
I'm willing to forgive and forget, especially for that.